As he was traveling in Asia last week, President Barack Obama let loose with a broadside against
critics who say his foreign policy is too weak.

“Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a
decade of war?” he demanded at a news conference in Manila. “Many who were proponents of … a
disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they
keep on just playing the same note over and over.” His job as commander in chief, he added, is “to
deploy military force (only) as a last resort.”

There in a nutshell seems to be the core tenet of the Obama Doctrine: Whether the problem is
Syria, Ukraine, Africa or Asia, avoid the mistakes George W. Bush made by sending troops to
Baghdad.

But the doctrine is based on a false premise. A more-robust U.S. foreign policy needn’t repeat
the military adventures so blindly pursued by the previous occupant of the White House. Obama could
have sent convincing signals to Russia, China, Iran, Syria and others — without American boots on
the ground.

Now it’s understandable that any president elected in 2008 would (or should) be chastened by the
huge mess his predecessor made in Iraq.

But Iraq can’t be the constant excuse for doing too little, too late on foreign-policy issues
that affect core U.S. interests.

In Manila, Obama scoffed at critics who said he should be assisting the Syrian opposition. “
Well, we’re assisting the opposition,” he said. Yet, in 2012, when Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey and CIA director
David Petraeus all proposed arming and organizing vetted, moderate Syrian opposition commanders,
Obama nixed it.

That was the moment when such aid might have convinced the Syrian regime and its backers in
Moscow that they had to negotiate a deal. Instead, the opposition was sent only nonlethal aid,
heavy on MREs — the meals ready to eat that are fed to U.S. troops.

Obama still doesn’t seem to understand the message of weakness this sent to Bashar Assad and
Vladimir Putin. And, in Manila, he was still bragging about the deal he struck with Moscow on
eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons, after reneging on a pledge to strike Assad’s military
facilities if the Syrian leader ever used poison gas.

Never mind that 150,000 Syrians have died from conventional weapons, while Assad still retains
some chemical weapons and allegedly used chlorine gas against civilians last week. Never mind that
Assad looks likely to retain power in a good chunk of Syria, while the rest has become a base for
Islamists and foreign jihadis who threaten the entire Mideast.

On Ukraine, the president also was bragging in Manila. “What we’ve done is mobilize the
international community,” he said. “Russia has never been more isolated.” He added, “Do people
actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter
the Russian army?”

No, they don’t. But sending the Ukrainian army MREs — yes, more of them — just makes us look
foolish.

Moreover, there is more Washington could be doing to squeeze Putin, who doesn’t yet believe he
is isolated. Despite U.S. urging, Europe seems unwilling to risk its economic ties to Russia by
backing stronger sanctions. NATO allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics — looking at Obama’s
performance — worry that he won’t stand up to Putin.

The Russian leader looks poised to disrupt May 25 elections in Ukraine, and take effective
control of east Ukraine with secret forces and local proxies. Yet, Obama appears unwilling to
unilaterally impose further sanctions, although many European analysts say this would pressure
Germany and other countries to follow suit. Nor has he put forward a strong energy policy that
could convince Moscow that Europe can wean itself off Russian gas.

In Manila, Obama seemed not to recognize that China is watching U.S. actions elsewhere. So are
America’s Asian allies, who have to judge whether Washington will support them if Beijing makes
aggressive moves.

They couldn’t have been reassured as Obama made clear his main lesson from Iraq: America should
shrink its aspirations abroad. “You hit singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while we may be
able to hit a home run,” the president said. He seemed to believe that he should rarely swing for
the bleachers.

That kind of approach will convince Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran that Obama can be ignored, which
will create new foreign policy headaches. It signals a president who isn’t really interested in the
foreign-policy game.